I've only now just noticed that the Ebon Musings site has an excellent refutation of the WLC KCA among its many excellent essays. It ends up as we all might expect: no matter what parts you may grant (it grants essentially none), you still MUST end up with a special pleading, which, of course, is not valid (or is arbitrary).

It's not terribly long--probably shorter than a SINGLE post of Majesty; yet it covers all the bases well.

Great Link, GMT.

My favorite part was about actual infinities (apologies for amount of text):

Regarding the supposed impossibility of forming an infinite by successive addition, Craig's argument makes a key faulty assumption. Of course an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition if one only has a finite number of steps to do it in. But an actual infinite can be formed by an infinite number of successive additions. In other words, there could have been an infinite number of events before now as long as there was also an infinite amount of time before now, which is exactly as we should expect. One might object that this proves that it is necessary to start with an infinite in order to get an infinite. This is true, and it is not a problem if one postulates a universe that has always existed as a brute fact requiring no further explanation, just as theists postulate a God that has always existed as a brute fact.

Finally, there is a problem with this premise that Craig does not seem to have considered, and one that shows why the kalam cosmological argument, despite its greater sophistication, is still built on special pleading. How many things does God know? An omniscient deity, obviously, would know an infinite number of things. How many things can God do? Equally obviously, an omnipotent deity would be able to do an infinite number of things. But these are not potential infinites; they are actual infinites. The number of things God knows or can do, according to traditional theism, is not increasing indefinitely without bound; it is already as great as it will ever be. Therefore, since Craig argues that an actual infinite cannot exist in reality, then he has proven by his own argument that God does not exist - at least, not an infinite god of the type conceived of by so many theists.

So it's NOT impossible for an actual infinity to exist. So it seems to me, that if an actual infinity is possible, it doesn't seem to be analogous to a deity (how can a deity be constantly infinitely growing/increasing "without bound" - more so, if one of it's defining properties include "changeless" and "timeless").

Therefore, attempting infer a supernatural start (which is the least plausible - as no supernatural event has been discovered that had not been proven naturalistic) to the universe where a natural cause is more likely, is premature speculation and full of flaws (without proof of the supernatural).

Simply Refuted, unless, of course you pass HAL's challenge...

Logged

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.Thomas Jefferson

Therefore, attempting infer a supernatural start (which is the least plausible - as no supernatural event has been discovered that had not been proven naturalistic) to the universe where a natural cause is more likely, is premature speculation and full of flaws (without proof of the supernatural).

Simply Refuted, unless, of course you pass HAL's challenge...

Supernatural is made-up nonsense until proven to exist. You might as well say that Munchkins created the universe with the help of the Witch of the North - it makes exactly as much sense as saying a supernatural deity did it. Exactly as much sense.

Majesty cannot prove the supernatural exists. Nobody has ever done that, not WLC, not anybody. So I am 100.0 % confident my challenge will go unanswered. Plus the beauty of it is I don't have to do much work at all. Since he is the claimant, he has to do all the work and all I have to do is examine his tests, methods, and theory.

Say Majesty - did we miss your theory of the supernatural? I don't recall reading it. Do you know what a theory is? Do you know how to verify and test a theory? Do you mind posting it, or even your hypothesis of the supernatural and how you propose verifying the hypothesis?

rhocam ~ I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes.

Dude, read his opening statement. I appreciate the love that you have for him, and you feel the need to defend him, but he was wrong for saying it, and you are even more wrong for defending him. He is trying to take credibility away from IMPs because the deeds of the IMPs, which were given to the IMPs by the people of the religion HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG by NATURAL PHENOMENON. That was the BASIS of his argument. And what i said was, even if you can prove it to be wrong by natural phenomenon, that STILL doesn't logically MEAN that their God doesnt exist, so his ARUGMENT was IRRELEVANT. Nor does it MEAN that we should GIVE up ALL religion based on ONE religion being PROVEN WRONG. You can sit there and argument the point until your fingertips turn purple, but THAT was the POINT that he was MAKING WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. It may of been a "bad bet" for the Greeks, but it's not a bad bet for CHRISTIANITY.

Sweetheart, assertion by all-caps doesn't add any weight to an argument. If anything, it shows that you're losing the plot.

Quote

This is another STUPID argument because i just looked it up. And fallacy of composition is the fallacy that i accused him of committing, because he is taking one "bad" part of religion, and using it as a basis for judging all religion as a whole, which is EXACTLY what fallacy of composition means. So dude, if you dont know what the hell you are talking about, just keep it to yourself. When he talk about IMP's, he is talking about IMP's as a WHOLE, which includes all religions. And I refuse to keep defending points that i KNOW are right. So YOU are the one that dont know crap about fallacies.

Sorry bud, but you're wrong. The one you're looking for is 'sweeping generalisation', not 'fallacy of composition'. A fallacy of composition is something like 'there exist entities on the Earth that are sentient, therefore the Earth is sentient'. A sweeping generalisation is something like 'because some examples of category X exhibit property Y, then all instances of category X exhibit property Y'. Your accusation falls into the latter category, not the former - and is still wrong, because kcrady stated explicitly that he was not making a deductive conclusion in this case.

Quote

This is an example of you people just wanting to disagree. "Extremely poor track record" oh really? Which one? There are thousands of religions out there. He can't logically say that all religion has a poor track record because he hasn't examined ALL RELIGIONS and all religions doesn't make the claims that he is assuming that they make, which is what his WHOLE argument is based upon. So dude, stop it, you cant win dude. You are in a no winning situation.

This is more idiocy on your part. You have been provided with plenty of examples in regard to the extremely poor track record of IMPs - whether we are talking about the reason for rainbows or anything else. Again, you fail to understand the parameters of this debate.

Quote

The quote above shows the ignorance creeping out. Ummm yes he DOES need to PROVE. He needs to prove that every single religion has a bad track record, because he said THAT EVERY RELIGION DOES HAVE A BAD TRACK RECORD. He is making a CLAIM. I understand that KC is yo boy. But right now you look like a bodygaurd that can't fight. As far as the rainbow crap is concerned. We know how rainbows occur on a natural level, but does that mean that Yahweh didn't cause the rainbow as recorded in Genesis by a supernatural occurence? NOOOO, it does not logically follow. IGNORANCE IGNORANCE IGNORANCE lol. Its really becoming sad.

KC is not "yo boy" (whatever that translates to in English), and now you're just raving. Nowhere in the parameters of this debate is it required for kcrady to prove that no entity that might be endowed with the moniker "God" can possibly exist. If you thought otherwise, then that is your problem. Every religion that has made testable claims has come up short. That is a fact. Whether you like it or not, you cannot escape that fact. You can keep shouting in all-caps, but it does not add any weight to your argument - if anything, it simply makes it appear that you are starting to lose the plot.

Quote

In this quote, starting from the word "that", shows a person that is in a battle that he can't win, i dont even know what the hell that means, i read it like three times. Oh well.

Well, I can't help your lack of understanding if you're not even willing to try.

Quote

I already answered this one in the Levan post. I understand that some of you people are older than me, which is why it seems like it was so long since you people cracked open a Physics book lol. But you really lost it dawg lol.

"Dawg"? I am not from your country, so you will have to explain that epithet to me.

As for the comment that it is "so long since you people cracked open a Physics book", those who know me will appreciate the delicious irony in this statement, given the nature of my job. And I also note that you failed to provide the working I asked for when it comes to establishing that the Big Bang contains within it a statement that violates the first law of thermodynamics, so it's obvious that your only response to my comment here is to wave your hands and dismiss it without addressing it. As for "answering" this issue in the "Levan post", all you did was added more false all-caps assertions into the mix. Friend, I am afraid that you have lost the plot completely. There is no hope for you.

Right on, he's only addressed a couple of KC refutation's so far. Other than that he keeps repeating his original argument. That's why I think he's not really understanding the points that KC is presenting. I do not think that he's purely trolling though.

Look dude...he didn't show why an actual infinity can exist in the natural world, which is one of my arguments, he didn't address the thermodynamic argument either. Yet you and others are making it seem as if he put on this spectacular performance. I addressed EVERY SINGLE ONE, of KCs arguments, and if i missed some, I always went back to address them.

Anyway Majesty, if you truly want to become a debater, you should really learn to absorb your opponent's argument and address it properly, or at least appear to it address properly. You keep saying that you're addressing his arguments, but all of us fail to see where. As much as you'd like to think we're all biased, this is not true. I for one was completely neutral to both arguments, as I hadn't heard either before. When both of you posted your opening statements, I was still neutral as both arguments appeared valid to me, but I must say that you lost me as soon as you posted your second reply to KC's refutation.

Naw bro, I don't need to change a thing. He didn't show why an actual infinity can exist in the natural world, and if he did, I would like for you "I am become relevant" to post exactly where he proved that an actual infinity can exist in the natural world, since my argument is that it CAN'T. I gave examples in my opening statement why it can't, and I havent seen a rebuttal for it YET. About the expansion argument he posted I think two different models that are in the premature stage of testing. But it is the model that I proposed, that has the most evidence leaning towards it, and it is the model that I proposed, that the majority of scientist are leaning towards, and i pointed it out time after time again in the debate. So what freakin more do you want dude? What freakin more do you want?? He committed fallacies that I called him out on, like fallacy of composition. You can look the fallacy up yourself, and then read his statement that i accused him of making it on, and tell me does that fallacy fit his argument perfectly. What more do you freakin want? I just dont understand how you can sit there say that you think that he won.

Sorry bud, but you're wrong. The one you're looking for is 'sweeping generalisation', not 'fallacy of composition'. A fallacy of composition is something like 'there exist entities on the Earth that are sentient, therefore the Earth is sentient'. A sweeping generalisation is something like 'because some examples of category X exhibit property Y, then all instances of category X exhibit property Y'. Your accusation falls into the latter category, not the former - and is still wrong, because kcrady stated explicitly that he was not making a deductive conclusion in this case.

Its funny, because when you look up fallacy of composition, you will find out that fallacy of "hasty generalization" often get confused with "fallacy of composition". And i can see why, because YOU are giving an example of the two being confused with one another.

This is more idiocy on your part. You have been provided with plenty of examples in regard to the extremely poor track record of IMPs - whether we are talking about the reason for rainbows or anything else. Again, you fail to understand the parameters of this debate.

Even if IMPs have "poor track records" (even tho i don't believe that they do), that STILL doesn't mean that IMPs dont exist lol. They could still exist despite a poor track record. So once again, you fail with the argument, and you can cling on to it until the day that you die, but you will still be wrong. So keep your false hope alive.

KC is not "yo boy" (whatever that translates to in English), and now you're just raving. Nowhere in the parameters of this debate is it required for kcrady to prove that no entity that might be endowed with the moniker "God" can possibly exist. If you thought otherwise, then that is your problem. Every religion that has made testable claims has come up short. That is a fact. Whether you like it or not, you cannot escape that fact. You can keep shouting in all-caps, but it does not add any weight to your argument - if anything, it simply makes it appear that you are starting to lose the plot.

Really? Give me a post that has every single religion that has made testable claims and prove that that particular religion has been proven wrong. You made the statement. So show me. If you can't, then you are a liar.

As for the comment that it is "so long since you people cracked open a Physics book", those who know me will appreciate the delicious irony in this statement, given the nature of my job. And I also note that you failed to provide the working I asked for when it comes to establishing that the Big Bang contains within it a statement that violates the first law of thermodynamics, so it's obvious that your only response to my comment here is to wave your hands and dismiss it without addressing it. As for "answering" this issue in the "Levan post", all you did was added more false all-caps assertions into the mix. Friend, I am afraid that you have lost the plot completely. There is no hope for you.

Regardless of whether the words are in CAPS, or lower case, each word that i type are hittin you people like a large grenade. How about you debate me on the issues Deus?? If you wont accept the challenge to the debate, then simply keep your comments to yourself.

Deus has volunteered to moderate this room. He will refrain from commenting on the debate, but will take over moderation and keep the comments on topic. He will do the same as I would have. If this spirals into an insult-fest it will be heavily moderated or locked at his discretion.

I am obliged - in my new capacity - to ask Majesty to either make any closing remarks in the debate thread, or (if he declines to do so) declare that he's happy to leave the debate where it is.

Either way, as this debating system has just been instituted, I'll allow Majesty one further post in final rebuttal to any existing comments in this commentary thread - after which I must ask him, and kcrady, to refrain from posting in it.

When i stumbled across this site, all i can do is smile. Because everything that Hawking is saying, I already said. Wow, he even implied that all space, time, and matter didn't exist before the Big Bang. You people argued me to DEATH contrary to what he said. Read..i even put the link up. The second paragraph just proves how wrong you people were, because me and Hawkings were on the same accord all along...wow

How did the universe really begin? Most astronomers would say that the debate is now over: The universe started with a giant explosion, called the Big Bang. The big-bang theory got its start with the observations by Edwin Hubble that showed the universe to be expanding. If you imagine the history of the universe as a long-running movie, what happens when you show the movie in reverse? All the galaxies would move closer and closer together, until eventually they all get crushed together into one massive yet tiny sphere. It was just this sort of thinking that led to the concept of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand. Amazingly, theorists have deduced the history of the universe dating back to just 10-43 second (10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second) after the Big Bang. Before this time all four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were unified, but physicists have yet to develop a workable theory that can describe these conditions.

During the first second or so of the universe, protons, neutrons, and electrons—the building blocks of atoms—formed when photons collided and converted their energy into mass, and the four forces split into their separate identities. The temperature of the universe also cooled during this time, from about 1032 (100 million trillion trillion) degrees to 10 billion degrees. Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier elements, most notably helium.

The next major step didn’t take place until roughly 300,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled to a not-quite comfortable 3000 degrees. At this temperature, electrons could combine with atomic nuclei to form neutral atoms. With no free electrons left to scatter photons of light, the universe became transparent to radiation. (It is this light that we see today as the cosmic background radiation.) Stars and galaxies began to form about one billion years following the Big Bang, and since then the universe has simply continued to grow larger and cooler, creating conditions conducive to life.

Three excellent reasons exist for believing in the big-bang theory. First, and most obvious, the universe is expanding. Second, the theory predicts that 25 percent of the total mass of the universe should be the helium that formed during the first few minutes, an amount that agrees with observations. Finally, and most convincing, is the presence of the cosmic background radiation. The big-bang theory predicted this remnant radiation, which now glows at a temperature just 3 degrees above absolute zero, well before radio astronomers chanced upon it.

I am obliged - in my new capacity - to ask Majesty to either make any closing remarks in the debate thread, or (if he declines to do so) declare that he's happy to leave the debate where it is.

Either way, as this debating system has just been instituted, I'll allow Majesty one further post in final rebuttal to any existing comments in this commentary thread - after which I must ask him, and kcrady, to refrain from posting in it.

When i stumbled across this site, all i can do is smile. Because everything that Hawking is saying, I already said. Wow, he even implied that all space, time, and matter didn't exist before the Big Bang. You people argued me to DEATH contrary to what he said. Read..i even put the link up. The second paragraph just proves how wrong you people were, because me and Hawkings were on the same accord all along...wow

The only difference between what Hawkings is saying and what you are saying is you're jumping to conclusions that some supernatural creator is behind it all. Science wont jump to those conclusions but some philosophers will. I agree with the big bang theory but I don't agree with your idea that some creator is it's cause regardless of whatever arguments you have - because all you're doing to making baseless assumptions.

« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 04:46:29 PM by Emily »

Logged

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

When i stumbled across this site, all i can do is smile. Because everything that Hawking is saying, I already said. Wow, he even implied that all space, time, and matter didn't exist before the Big Bang. You people argued me to DEATH contrary to what he said. Read..i even put the link up. The second paragraph just proves how wrong you people were, because me and Hawkings were on the same accord all along...wow

I don't expect you to know this but matter can be converted into energy and vice versa. No where in that article does it state that energy could not have existed prior to the big bang. In fact, no where in the article does it state at all that anything could or could not have existed before the big bang, let alone energy. Yes, space and time did not exist as we currently understand them but that is not what you just tried to insinuate. You seriously couldn't think this article helped you at all, could you?

Logged

I will stop to contribute in this thread until some one shows up and seem to have brain. -- Master

It's a shame how you put your trust in theories that keep on changing. Bible has stayed the same for thousands of years [. . .] -- Skylark889

When i stumbled across this site, all i can do is smile. Because everything that Hawking is saying, I already said. Wow, he even implied that all space, time, and matter didn't exist before the Big Bang. You people argued me to DEATH contrary to what he said. Read..i even put the link up. The second paragraph just proves how wrong you people were, because me and Hawkings were on the same accord all along...wow

Here's the section you're citing:

Quote

The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand. Amazingly, theorists have deduced the history of the universe dating back to just 10-43 second (10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second) after the Big Bang. Before this time all four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were unified, but physicists have yet to develop a workable theory that can describe these conditions.

In other words, space and time did not exist, but matter did -- which is exactly what we've been saying all along, and directly contradicts what you said above.

Oops...

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Thanks Majesty. I take it that your previous post (the PBS citation) is the one post permitted, therefore I must ask you from now on to ignore any barracking you get from the peanut gallery, refrain from posting in this thread and concentrate on your closing statement. I hope that's ok.

Look dude...he didn't show why an actual infinity can exist in the natural world, which is one of my arguments, he didn't address the thermodynamic argument either. Yet you and others are making it seem as if he put on this spectacular performance. I addressed EVERY SINGLE ONE, of KCs arguments, and if i missed some, I always went back to address them.

It's not that you missed the Majesty, as much as you didn't exactly get the points straight. Let's take the actual infinity existing in the real world. KC and other member's of the forum have already told you that Your assertion doesn't have to be true. You say it leads to logical absurdities, but do not mention them when you're asked to. This is a good example of you not absorbing the argument.

Quote

Naw bro, I don't need to change a thing. He didn't show why an actual infinity can exist in the natural world, and if he did, I would like for you "I am become relevant" to post exactly where he proved that an actual infinity can exist in the natural world, since my argument is that it CAN'T. I gave examples in my opening statement why it can't, and I havent seen a rebuttal for it YET. About the expansion argument he posted I think two different models that are in the premature stage of testing. But it is the model that I proposed, that has the most evidence leaning towards it, and it is the model that I proposed, that the majority of scientist are leaning towards, and i pointed it out time after time again in the debate. So what freakin more do you want dude? What freakin more do you want?? He committed fallacies that I called him out on, like fallacy of composition. You can look the fallacy up yourself, and then read his statement that i accused him of making it on, and tell me does that fallacy fit his argument perfectly. What more do you freakin want? I just dont understand how you can sit there say that you think that he won.

He never did post an example Majesty. As you can see no one has yet claimed that they can give an example for an actual infinity existing in the universe. But what makes you claim they don't? As I've said you haven't provided any source of evidence to back your claim.Claim: Actual infinities can't existEvidence provided: None Now when you say 'the model that I proposed', are you referring to the big-bang? Because you do know that KC is using the exact same model. When you're referring to the other models he provided, you should realize that he posted them to give examples of possible models for what caused the big-bang or what was there prior to it. As for his statement being a fallacy of composition. Well I guess it's a bit subjective, depending on what you understood from his statements. His statements were rational logical statements that he emphasized were not conclusive, more than they were clear indicators, or strong evidence. It's not that he's stating X doesn't exist or X didn't do that. He saying why should we believe that X did this or that X exists?

EDIT: I posted this before reading Deus's posts. I'll leave it up, but won't expect a reply. If you feel like replying Majesty you can PM me.(Also some spelling)

« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 05:14:26 PM by I am become relevant »

Logged

I is back.

I'm a muslim.No I won't email you a bomb if you tick me off, but only because I don't know how to.

How did the universe really begin? Most astronomers would say that the debate is now over: The universe started with a giant explosion[1], called the Big Bang. ...

... Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier elements, most notably helium[2].

I take it that your previous post (the PBS citation) is the one post permitted, therefore I must ask you from now on to ignore any barracking you get from the peanut gallery, refrain from posting in this thread

Deus, his PBS post was posted only a few minutes after yours. Majesty may not have realized that he is being obliged to leave this thread. I think you should let him make a proper goodbye to his critics here, if he wants one.

Contratulations on your promotion, btw. What are the perks of moderation these days? Do you get a uniform?

I take it that your previous post (the PBS citation) is the one post permitted, therefore I must ask you from now on to ignore any barracking you get from the peanut gallery, refrain from posting in this thread

Deus, his PBS post was posted only a few minutes after yours. Majesty may not have realized that he is being obliged to leave this thread. I think you should let him make a proper goodbye to his critics here, if he wants one.

Okay, fair enough - one more. But it must be a single post.

Quote

Contratulations on your promotion, btw. What are the perks of moderation these days? Do you get a uniform?

Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier elements, most notably helium

screwtape:

Quote

Helium is not a heavier element. It is the second lightest. And as I recall, the heavy elements, like iron, were created in the gravity of dying stars when they collapse.

Screwtape, I agree the PBS description is ambiguous, but I think they're trying to say that the element helium is heavier than its constituent protons and neutron, not that it's heavier than other elements.

(I'm using Occam's Razor here. Thinking helium is a heavy element is an elementary (ha-ha) error. More likely that it's poor language skills).

In other words, space and time did not exist, but matter did -- which is exactly what we've been saying all along, and directly contradicts what you said above.

Oops...

I suck at cosmology. Could you please explain that?

Basically, the theory says that all the matter in the universe was compressed to infinite density in a dimensionless point; i.e., matter, but no space. It sounds weird to say that matter can exist without taking up space, but this concept is not peculiar to Big Bang theory. Black holes are said to be the same.

Quote

Besides, I think his response would be "matter can't exist without space", so it might be better to address it beforehand.

OK, answered above.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn